Realism as a Style in Cinema Verite: Technology and Primar

The role of technology in Primary is integral to the execution of the ideals of Drew, and cinema verite (a label he did not choose, or enjoy). Drew wanted to “be there when the news happens”, was “determined to be as unobtrusive as possible”, and was “determined not to distort the situation”. In order for Drew to act as near as possible to a fly on the wall, the technology had to evolve to allow cameras and sound recorders to fit into the space of a car, to record audio, to edit on the road. Drew helped to engineering equipment that was capable of doing this, and set out on the road in Primary. At one point Leacock and Drew drop midgetape records into ashtrays around Kennedy’s hotel room and Leacock sat down and casually held the camera in his lap an filmed Kennedy claiming, “I’m quiet sure he hadn’t the foggiest notion I was shooting” and this, apparently, moments like this make Leacock and Drew believe they are accomplishing their goal, biut how can they, or anyone know what was really happening. Perhaps Kennedy decided to assume that the cameras are always recording and to act accordingly at all times.
Despite technology, despite the tiny microphones and smaller cameras, it’s still impossible for the crew to disappear, that their choices of framing a shot, editing a shot, and the very presence of the camera impacts behavior or the subject and therefore can never truly capture “reality” as it unfolds. This is why, according to many theorists in Hall’s article – Drew Associates and other practitioners of cinema varite come off as naïve and foolish, caught between arguments that “the truth no longer lies in seeming to give a good performance but in seizing the individual unawares[. . .].” (Marcorelles, 1963) and “given that no film can ever break down completely the barrier between the real world and the screen world, cinema verite knowingly reaches for unattainable goals” (Mamber, 1974) and “this claim to a new privileged grasp of reality appears in retrospect to have been somewhat naïve” (Waugh, 1975). Essentially, the mood shifted from the belief in the possibility of filming something unmitigated to the realization that it is impossible to do so. Introducing the idea of reflexivity – the act of the filmmaker visibly and intentionally injecting themselves, their presence, and the camera into the frame in an obvious manner was an attempt at again trying to capture this notion of “reality” and an “honest” documentary – but if we take Michael Moore, for example, I can’t make any claims that his documentaries are any more honest and real than those that are not reflexive.
I think the closest comparison I can think of for reaching some of the goals that the critics and theorists in Hall’s essay articulate again involves technology. Reaching actual unmitigated actuality footage seems more possible in the realm of surveillance video, not so much that in the realm of House on 92nd street, but more the footage that would come from a security camera, a camera in a store, on a traffic light, in center city, on temple campus. Here, the camera is in place, constantly surveying the action around it, without the touch of the hand to select what is important – there is no music, no narrator, no editing. Whatever happens, happens. Of course, the verite aspect can be breached again if the subjects are aware the they are on surveillance cameras, in fact, this is some of the point of surveillance. Though, perhaps we are so used to surveillance that 1)our behavior is constantly monitored such that it produces a new normative behavior or 2) we don’t care any more and behave as we would without the presence of the camera. This type of footage, gathered as far from human intervention as possible, may approach the goals of verite.
Another aspect of technology that may alter the possibilities, and realities of verite is videoblogging in the style of personal narratives. Access to a camera, editing equipment, and a means of distribution (internet) is fairly common and in these circumstances, the subject can tape themselves, edit themselves, appear reflexively as well as subjectively in the video. One could, at any moment, click on video that is a self-made interpretation of reality – there is often little explanation, no voice-over narrator, no context, and little knowledge about how why or where the video was made. It could easily be a subjects deliberately “constructed” representation of reality – but even that process is, in and of itself, an unmigited true reality. It’s not a perfect theory, but neither are the theories in Hall’s article – they are all attempts at solving the riddle of reality and representation but after reading her essay and all the contrasting arguments, I found myself wondering if it “really” matters.